home‎ > ‎

The bodies and the bay are proof of innocence, not guilt.

For far too many convinced by dubious 'logic' that Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, the conjunction of his trip to test his boat on the day of her abduction and the finding of the bodies around the bay area 4 months later is sufficient to 'prove' he is guilty. As I have shown, this is not a coincidence - the bodies were found at the bay because the police notified the world that that was where they wanted them to be and so that's where they were put, a mere day or two before they were found.
 
However we can show another flaw in this 'logic' and the prosecution's claims about it. He claimed in his closing:
 
"The only man, or only person that we know without any doubt that was in the exact location where Laci and Conner's bodies washed ashore, at the exact  time that they went missing, is sitting right there. Not another soul do we, have you heard any evidence fits that description. That alone is proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.
 
You can take that fact to the bank and you can convict this man of murder".
 
The flaw in this argument may not be clear. Let us change that.
 
Suppose that I never buy lottery tickets, not once in my life. Finally I purchase one, and, amazingly, I win first prize. Now I can claim that, "Every time I buy a lottery ticket I win first prize". This is a true statement, and will remain so unless I buy another ticket and lose.
 
Equally, suppose I own a store and decide to try selling lottery tickets, I only sell one, but it wins first prize. Now I can claim that, "Everyone who buys a lottery ticket here will win first prize". This is a true statement, and will remain so unless I sell a ticket which loses.
 
This is the flaw in the argument. We cannot look at a situation through a narrow, vertical slit and claim it is a true view of the whole situation. You certainly can't look at just one day, then at another day 4 months later, and connect the two while ignoring everything before, during and since those two periods.
 
Let us look at the bay then. It would not be rash to assume, as a first estimate, that on average, about 6,000 people use the bay on any day for pleasure. (These numbers don't matter. They're just to get some sort of analysis).
 
Let us consider bodies being dumped in the bay. On any given day (or night), it is highly unlikely that a body will be dumped. One estimate would be 1 body dumped there every three years.
 
So those are the numbers. But we are comparing days with years. We must adjust this. A reasonable period to average over would be 10 years. I use 10 years to be sure I have more than one body dumping episode to deal with.
 
So, we have 3 bodies being dumped in 10 years and we have 365 * 10 * 6,000 day uses for pleasure. We are, thus, comparing 3 to 21,900,000.

Let's round this down to 20 million. Going back to the prosecutor's claim, he is claiming that
20 million goes into 3. Hardly. He shouldn't try to play "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader".
 
Clearly he is wrong, and thus his argument is shown to be false. This was really the entire crux of his case and it is completely wrong.
 
This is all we need for innocence, however we can go a step further.



 Given realistic numbers, there are three possibilities.

 
The three must 'fit' into the 20 million either completely, partially, or not at all.
 
  • If we claim that the three fits into the 20 million completely, we are claiming that every person who dumps a body in the bay does so during a pleasure use. As a result, the claim then is that no one ever dumps a body there unless they are simultaneously using the bay for pleasure. This is a rash and obviously untrue claim. It cannot stand.
     
  • If we claim that the three fits into the 20 million partially, we are claiming that some people who dump a body in the bay do so during a pleasure use. But we cannot claim this without at least one example. We do not have an example. We might as well claim that some or all the people who dump a body in the bay do so while wearing an orange clown wig and big, floppy shoes. With no examples and no evidence, this is a claim unsupported by facts.
     
  • If we are claiming that people who dump a body in the bay never do so during a pleasure use, we are making a claim which is supported, as far as we know, by every example we have and by common sense. It is quite reasonable to believe that all such body dumping episodes are done as quickly as possible, at night, and that the killer arrives and leaves as quickly as possible, never letting his presence be associated with the body. This is common sense.
 
However, since Scott Peterson used the bay for pleasure during the day, let other people see him there, told the police he was there, and never denied his presence (in fact insisted on it) he is excluded from consideration.
 
Thus he is excluded from any connection to the disposal of the bodies by perfectly common sense. Even if you change the numbers, assuming an incredibly high 10 bodies are dumped there every year, assuming only 100,000 day-uses of the bay, the logic does not change.
 
The bodies prove he is innocent, quite apart from all other factors.
Comments